« Free software activists should accept that software freedom is not an isolated issue, with its own, completely independent value set, but is just one aspect of a wider struggle for justice, and that we can never achieve full software justice under capitalism. Once freed from this isolated logic, the next obvious step is integrating it into our advocacy, critiques, and educational material. »http://flowing.systems/2016/09/24/a-short-critique-of-stallmanism/

@lunar I don't understand where the argument against capitalism plays out in this article. It wasn't a short article, and yet it didn't really make an argument. Libre software exists because of capitalism. There was demand and developers stepped in to fill that demand. People like Stallman and others have benefited from libre software.

@h4ck3r9Capitalism is based private property and making profit. Libre software was born out of challenging private property and volunteer work.I'm puzzled on how you can say that libre software exists because of capitalism.

@lunar it exists to fill a need. Capitalism is not a synthetic construct, it is an organic construct. Within the construct of capitalism libre software can exist because it is offered by some and consumed by others. But I think I realize now that our terms may not be mutually defined. Perhaps the article is considering capitalism as some sort of over lord structure with masters and slaves?

@lunar not exactly. Capitalism is simply the term. It is defined by action and reaction. A lot of people seem to think that capitalism is some sort of political viewpoint. It is simply a term that describes an action and reaction. That is my problem with the article really. The author seems to think that capitalism is a faction that drives a political ideology, but in reality it is simply a descriptor of an observation. He really isn't making an argument.

@lunar given and what is received. Then came the Keynesianism and socialism and communism. Those were not new observations, but rather ideas imposed to control. So you see that capitalism is different because it was not directly or synthetically created like other theories. It was merely an observation.

@h4ck3r9Honestly, I don't care if “capitalism” has an actual definition. What I know is that this very world where one is denied access to food, shelter, and health based on wealth, where very basic human needs like air and water are being spoiled for the benefit of a tiny fraction of the population, is not a world in which I want to live in.

@lunar that is why I didn't this morning explaining what capitalism is. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Capitalist is not an entity or a theory of living. You can only attribute things like poverty to the governing body and the ones in power. Capitalism is a back end protocol, not a frontend driver.

@lunar That's interesting. Why do you jump to a conclusion of what I care about? I also care about those things, but the poison generated by the misuse of a word drives a lot deeper than you may think. When you use the word capitalism and strap all of the world's woes to it, you are deferring the responsibility from the true culprits. The reason I care about a word is because the word capitalism has become a scapegoat for the true social illness.

@h4ck3r9The article is about how some discourse around free software doesn't help either free software nor making the world a better place. Yet you engage in a discussion about the proper use of the world capitalism, or if capitalism is the issue. I don't think that's helpful. It's not helpful for me, and I don't think it's helpful for the world. Sorry.

@lunar the article was just a bunch of disconnected thoughts without any true unity or purpose. He may have had a point, but it was easily lost with his disjointed form of discourse. It is an example of very bad writing.